Hitler's Compromises: Coercion and Consensus in Nazi Germany

by Nathan Stoltzfus

A comprehensive and eye-opening examination of Hitler’s regime, revealing the numerous strategic compromises he made in order to manage dissent

History has focused on Hitler’s use of charisma and terror, asserting that the dictator made few concessions to maintain power. Nathan Stoltzfus, the award-winning author of Resistance of Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Germany, challenges this notion, assessing the surprisingly frequent tactical compromises Hitler made in order to preempt hostility and win the German people’s complete fealty.
 
As part of his strategy to secure a “1,000-year Reich,” Hitler sought to convince the German people to believe in Nazism so they would perpetuate it permanently and actively shun those who were out of step with society. When widespread public dissent occurred at home—which most often happened when policies conflicted with popular traditions or encroached on private life—Hitler made careful calculations and acted strategically to maintain his popular image. Extending from the 1920s to the regime’s collapse, this revealing history makes a powerful and original argument that will inspire a major rethinking of Hitler’s rule.

Genres: History, World War II, Nonfiction

432 pages, Hardcover

Published July 12, 2016

About the author

Nathan Stoltzfus is an associate professor of history at Florida State University noted for his work on protest during the Nazi era.

Reviews

[Superangela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book that shows you the intricate ways Hitler's intellect worked. At times it seems he could change his mind when he thought open aggressive methods would not work as well as persuasion... although persuasion does not imply honesty.

[Andrew Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book attempts to explain why Hitler had such a huge following among his society, when most of those affected by his rule claimed that he had ruled by fear and persecution of all opposed to his vision. One may suspect that if fewer Germans believed in their racial superiority and refused to participate in persecution of Jews things would have turned out differently.

The author provides a few examples of civil non-compliance, initiated by few brave individuals who decided to say no to some of the Nazi ideas how to change their society. He covers the following points:

1) Before becoming a chancellor, Hitler vowed to gain power for his movement by peaceful means only. He managed to restrain his armed organisation SA not to fight any official power, restricting them to fighting communists and abusing Jewish minority, whose he blamed for the lost war. That way he won trust of military and the middle classes, who shared his ideas on what was wrong with the society.

2) Hitler wanted to subordinate the Protestant Church by creating a position of Reich Bishop and nominated Ludwig Muller for it. Bishop Meiser rejected Hitler's nominee and together with bishop Wurm, got arrested. A campaign of civil disobedience was launched by the grass roots protestants and Hitler decided to compromise and reinstated both bishops, while cutting loose bishop Muller. The Nazi regime continued to undercut the authority of the church and imprison many of the protestant activists.

3) Hitler attempted to subordinate the Catholic church as well by replacing the catholic schools with the community schools, and replacing all crosses there with his portraits. In Goldenstedt, in May 1938, a priest Franz Vorwerk initiated strike by Catholic and Protestant parents against the establishment of the community school there. Twelve men were subsequently arrested and taken to concentration camps. Vorwerk took responsibility for the strike and managed to get those arrested to return home after six months.

In Aril 1941 a Bavarian Education Minister Adolf Wagner ordered that school prayer should be replaced by Nazi songs and that crucifixes and religious pictures be removed from Bavarian classrooms.

At the same time Martin Bormann was confiscating church properties, mainly in the Catholic areas of western central Germany. The SS seized the Grussau Benedictine monastery claiming the war had necessitated the confiscation.

As the regime closed the Munsterschwarzach monastery and detained the monks, people started demonstrating against it.

Over the summer 1941, Bishop Galen preached his sermons condemning the confiscations and then euthanasia. in July Hitler ordered Bormann to stop the confiscation of all church property in Germany. In Poland almost all religious houses were closed and virtually all Jesuits imprisoned.

In August Hitler issued a decree to halt the euthanasia of adults. He also made sure that Wagner's decree removing crucifixes from Bavaria was rescinded.

4) On 27th of February 1943 Gestapo launched a massive arrest of Jews in Berlin. Some eight thousand Jews and two thousand married to Arian women were taken from their jobs and homes. Most of the Jews ended up in Auschwitz, while two thousand from intermarriages were imprisoned at a Jewish Community office at Rosenstrasse. Their wives started congregating outside. They continued to do so despite police warnings that they would be shot if they did not leave. On 6th of March most of the Jews were released by Goebbels to stop the protest.

This incident was mostly unknown until 1989, and earlier only mentioned and sometimes labelled as a "legend". All the relevant Nazi documents had been destroyed and only witness accounts enabled to make it known.

[Soubresaut · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book reads like a dissertation and was a struggle to get through. Published by Yale I was expecting an academic book but not one written in a style so stilted that I looked for the translator’s name - there isn’t one. Helpfully there’s a concluding chapter which condenses everything gone before so if the convoluted language gets too much just skip to that. It turns out that in the scheme of things Hitler’s compromises didn’t amount to much, probably postponements until the time was right, and only ever in relation to his constituency of German aryans, mostly by restraining some regional Nazi functionaries determined to bring them into line by force. A few churchmen were let off for defending their corner or speaking out against euthanising “useless mouths” but at heart they turned out to be good Nazis too whilst the domestic euthanasia programme was put off until war victories or death toll would lead to general acceptance. Aryans married to Jews were considered traitors but official action against them and their spouses was inhibited. The compromises are a window on Hitler’s charismatic style of leadership predicated on a constituent faith that he was always just and would right wrongs if only he knew of them. To fulfil Hitler’s vision of the thousand year Reich, Germans had to become good Nazis willingly.

[Michael Samerdyke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the most interesting books on Nazi Germany I have read.

The author argues that Hitler was far more flexible in his thinking, at least when dealing with Germans, than he is usually depicted as being. Persuasion, and not coercion, seemed to be Hitler's goal, as he assumed this would make people work harder. Consequently, when faced with public opposition, demonstrations or the threat of demonstrations, that would puncture the image of a "national community" happy under its Leader, Hitler was willing to backtrack, at least temporarily, and as long as his image as Leader was not affected.

Highly recommended for those interested in Nazi Germany and dictatorships in general.

[Jfranc41 · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look about how Nazism was implemented on the ground in Germany. The old view of a top down imposition is only half accurate, since ideas of national greatness and cohesion had broad support and people were willing to work with the regime. Hitler also adjusted the implementation of some aspects of his program as they clashed with religious or ingrained social mores despite the Nazis wish to change all aspects of the older German culture.

[Roberta Westwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unique perspectives

Overall, a good book. I knew much of what was covered, but learned plenty too. More insights into Hitler’s thinking… wasn’t easy to listen to, but broadened my awareness of how he did what he did. I actually found about the last 25% of the book of the greatest interest, as it covered the impact of WWII on German citizens, such as children and women being relocated out of cities that were being bombed. Worth a listen.

[Mark Steininger · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but not riveting, I respect the authors intervention into how the coercion Nazi state is taught but didn't find much of this to be terribly ground breaking. The conflicts with the church, parents and the euthanasia question are all compelling examples of how the autocracy was sold to the people but don't give much character to the lived experience of those who endured this. That being said I think this is an instructive book about authoritarianism more generally, one does not simply create the totalitarian state out of thin air.

[Mark Nenadov · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at how, when necessary, Hitler strategically compromised in some areas. This did not make his rule any less atrocious, but it shows him as a very calculating leader who knew how to manipulate the people he ruled.

[Matthew Sparling · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. While the author does indeed show how Hitler compromised at times when it was politically smart, I found the book to be disjointed and rambling.

[Grant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stoltzfus argues that Hitler frequently compromised with popular opinion in Germany (never with enemies) in an effort to gradually convert the German people to National Socialist values. In the cases of the euthanasia program, religious schools, and evacuation of children from cities, the regime backed down from unpopular policies. In one case, the non-Jewish spouses of Jewish men arrested and slotted for deportation were able to gain their release. This raises the important and uncomfortable question of how much resistance to the Nazi regime might have been possible, had the will to try been present.